Legal Opinion

Siegel v. Chicago Trust & Savings Bank

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 29, 1889PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Hollín S. Williamson, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtGary, J.

The single question in this case is whether instruments in this form— are promissory notes, so that an assignee may recover on them, though the consideration failed; the assignee having taken them before the time for the consideration to commence had arrived, for value, and with no notice that the consideration was likely to fail.

“Form 8. Dalziel’s Railway Advertising.
“$300.00. Chicago, March 5,1887.
“On July 1, 1887, we promise to pay D. Dalziel, or order, the sum of three hundred dollars for the privilege of one framed .advertising sign, size............one end of each of 159 street cars of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis v. . McCreadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
  2. State National Bank v. CasonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1887
  3. Stevens v. BluntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
  4. McCarty v. HowellIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Considerant v. BrisbaneThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Weber v. RosenheimAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
  2. Ehrler v. WorthenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1893
  3. Hovorka v. HemmerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
  4. Maze v. HeinzeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API